MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382654638 · doi:10.3138/chr-2022-0036

The Canadian Home: The Fate of Owners and Investors in the Great Depression

2023· article· en· W4382654638 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Richard Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArrearsCompromiseGreat DepressionDepression (economics)Real estateEstateFellProperty taxBusinessSketchFinanceEconomicsPolitical scienceLawDebtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Canada’s is a liberal, settler-colonial society that has long valued the right to property, we know remarkably little about the experience of owners of, and investors in, residential real estate during the Great Depression. This was a period of great suffering for both. Scattered and neglected sources, coupled with cautious comparisons with the better-documented us experience, makes it possible to provide a plausible sketch. Many mortgaged homeowners, and a higher proportion of the stigmatized landlords, lost their properties through default or tax sales. Unlike the situation in the United States, lending institutions did not go under, but most residential mortgages were provided by private individuals, many of whom suffered. Because numerous owners fell into tax arrears, while an increasing number of families demanded relief, municipalities were squeezed. Out of necessity, landlords, lenders, and municipalities offered concessions to tenants and property owners, respectively. Although the Depression was a decade of occasional conflict, it was also defined by everyday compromise and cooperation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207